Orne, M. T., & Scheibe, K. E. The contribution of nondeprivation
factors in the production of sensory deprivation effects: The psychology of the
"panic button." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 68,
3-12.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1964, Vol. 68, No. 1, 3-12

THE CONTRIBUTION OF NONDEPRIVATION FACTORS IN THE PRODUCTION OF SENSORY
DEPRIVATION EFFECTS: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE "PANIC BUTTON" 1

MARTIN T. ORNE 2 AND

Harvard Medical School

KARL E. SCHEIBE

University of California, Berkeley

From the premise that both social cue factors, or demand characteristics, and
sensory deprivation operations combine in producing commonly observed effects
of sensory deprivation, an experiment is reported which tests the hypothesis
that sensory deprivation effects can be produced by manipulating demand characteristics
while holding the effect of the physical environment constant. Experimental
Ss were exposed to pre-experimental conditions which were designed to imply
to them that sensory deprivation effects were expected to emerge. The same physical
conditions were structured for control Ss in such a way as to lead them to expect
nothing to happen. Results show that the groups were significantly different
on a number of before and after tests, as well as in general clinical appearance,
and these results were interpreted as supporting the hypothesis. An interpretation
is offered of the operation of demand characteristics as a factor interacting
with treatment conditions. Ways of taking demand characteristics into account
in sensory deprivation research are suggested.

It seems reasonable to view the subject in a psychological experiment as a
social as well as an experimental animal. To do so, however, makes necessary
a distinction between that part of the subject's behavior which is a function
of the experimental variable under analysis and that part which is tied to his
perception of the experiment as a social situation.

To support this view, Orne (1959b) has shown that subjects in hypnosis experiments
behave in a way that is largely congruent with their preconceptions of hypnosis.
Orne (1959a; 1962), in developing the concept of "demand characteristics,"
has also suggested that the results of many psychological experiments are liable
to be biased by those cues, both implicit and explicit, that communicate to
the subject what is expected of him in the experimental situation.

The results of any experiment involving human subjects are seen to include
at least two distinct components. The first, which may be called the true experimental
effect, is entirely contingent upon the antecedence of the independent variable.
The second is induced by the social cues that attend the experimental situation
and is unrelated to the independent variable. An analogy may aptly be drawn
to the distinction between "real" and "placebo" effects
in pharmacological research, where it is first necessary to discern the extent
and direction of the placebo component before a meaningful conclusion can be
drawn about the real effect.

Research findings on sensory deprivation are likely to be subject to the kind
of bias here described. Little attempt has been made to separate those aspects
of the reactions to sensory deprivation actually due to the diminution of sensory
input from those due to the matrix of social cues surrounding the experimental
situation .3

1 This study was supported in part by Contract AF49(638)-728 from the Air Force
Office of Scientific Research and in part by Public Health Research Grant M-3369,
National Institute of Mental Health, United States Public Health Service.

2 We would like to thank Ronald Shor for his help in the analysis of the data
and in the exposition of our findings. We are grateful also to Donald N.
O'Connell, Emily C. Orne, and M. Brewster Smith for their many valuable suggestions
and comments.

3 One notable exception is the work of Jackson (1960; Jackson & Kelly, 1962)
who explored the role of "indirect suggestion" in the production of
sensory deprivation effects.

3

4 MARTIN T. ORNE AND KARL E.SCHEIBE

Since the first studies at McGill University in 1951, there have been many
attempts to delineate and account for the effects of prolonged sensory deprivation.
Experimental techniques have been devised to reduce insofar as possible all
forms of external stimulation. The McGill research employed a sound-damped cubicle:
the subject rests on a soft bed, wearing translucent goggles over his eyes and
cardboard gauntlets over his forearms and hands (Bexton, Heron, & Scott,
1954). Another technique involves placing normal subjects in tank-type respirators,
so that movement is restricted and external sources of stimulation are rendered
fairly homogeneous (Leiderman, Mendelson, Wexler, & Solomon, 1958). A third
technique consists of prolonged total immersion in a tank of water at body temperature,
with the subject using a face mask for breathing (Lilly, 1956). With a very
few exceptions (Vernon & McGill, 1957; Zubek, Sansom, & Prysiazniuk,
1960) these procedures have produced significant changes in behavior, usually
in the form of a decrement in psychological efficiency.

Bexton et al. (1954) report a general cognitive deterioration under the McGill
conditions. Deprivation subjects showed decrements on a number of pre- and postisolation
cognitive tasks. Subjects reported an intenseness of visual imagery, an
inability to concentrate, and spatial and temporal disorientation. Scott, Bexton,
Heron, and Doane (1959) and Doane, Mahatoo, Heron, and Scott (1959) provide
further evidence on several more testing instruments, including some of the
perceptual-motor variety. The findings of Vernon, McGill, Gulick, and Candland
(1961) have been less striking, but the general tenor of their conclusions is
the same. Likewise, studies by Zubek et al. (1960) and Zubek, Pushkar, Sansom,
and Gowing (1961) show an impairment of mental functioning along the lines noted
above. A remark by Hebb (1958) perhaps best epitomizes the findings of these
studies: "Without physical pain, without drugs, the personality can be
badly deformed simply by modifying the perceptual environment [p. 110]."

An alternative view of these data would be that at least in part the dramatic
effects could be a function of the demand characteristics of the experimental
situation. Thus, the cues in the experimental procedure itself would communicate
to the subject the behavior expected of him.

There is evidence in an experiment by Kandel, Myers, and Murphy (1958) that
preparing a subject for probable hallucinations significantly affects the frequency
of hallucinations. This preparation was accomplished by verbal instructions.
However, such devices as "panic buttons" in experiments (Vernon et
al., 1961; Zubek et al., 1961) are in a sense eloquent "instructions."
The use of such a device increases the subject's expectation that something
intolerable may occur, and, with it, the likelihood of a bad experience.

Indeed, it is possible to refer to many potential role cues of greater or lesser
subtlety. In an experiment by Freedman, Grunebaum, and Greenblatt (1961), subjects
were required to sign a forbidding release form prior to participation. Psychiatric
screenings have been commonly used to single out individuals who might be harmed
by an experiment, and physical examinations have been given to make sure of
the subject's ability to withstand experimental stress. Even the existence of
such experimental accouterments as observation windows and microphones have
a potential cue value. As one of our own subjects remarked, "If you didn't
expect to see or hear something unusual, why were you looking and listening?"

It should be made clear that the experiment to be described was not designed
to test any hypothesis about the nature of sensory deprivation. Rather it was
aimed at calling attention to a set of variables which must be considered in
evaluating that phenomenon. The postulate that certain cues increase the likelihood
of occurrence of a predicted effect is easily converted into an empirical question:
If the cues attending the typical sensory deprivation experiment are retained
while no sensory deprivation takes place, is it still possible to produce effects
similar to those produced in such an experiment?

5 METHODOLOGY IN DEPRIVATION STUDIES

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were recruited for "a psychological experiment in Meaning Deprivation"
through the placement services of colleges and universities in the Boston
area. Each subject was paid $2 an hour plus transportation costs. In order to
correspond more closely with the practice in most previous sensory deprivation
experiments, only male college students ranging in age from 18 to 25 were used.
Subjects were excluded who had previously participated in sensory deprivation
experiments or who were too familiar with sensory deprivation experiment results.4
Twenty subjects in all took part; each was assigned alternately to the experimental
and control groups, with 10 subjects comprising each group.

Procedure for Experimental Group

All subjects who called to volunteer were told that the experimental session
would last an indefinite period of time, and that in order for the subject to
participate, it would be necessary for him to reserve an entire day or entire
evening. He was also told that the experiment was to be performed at a psychiatric
hospital.

When the subject arrived there he was greeted by the experimenter, dressed
in a white medical coat. Prior to giving instructions, the experimenter asked
the subject briefly about his medical history, asked him whether he had a history
of dizziness, or fainting spells, and so on. An aura of great seriousness and
importance was maintained throughout this introductory period. As a prop to
reinforce the subject's notion that great caution was necessary in the experiment,
a tray of drugs and medical instruments, labeled "Emergency Tray"
was in full view. No direct reference was ever made to this tray unless the
subject asked, and then he was told that this was one of the precautionary measures
taken for the experiment, and that he had nothing to worry about.

At the conclusion of the introductory remarks, the following set of instructions,
a composite of the instructions used in other sensory deprivation experiments,
was read to the subject:

The experiment for which you have volunteered has as its object the determination
of the psychological consequences of a special kind of deprivation procedure.

There are three parts to the experiment: Testing Period I, the Experimental
Deprivation Condition, and Testing Period II. You will receive special instructions
in the testing periods.

During the deprivation period, which will last an undisclosed length of time,
you will have an optional task involving adding numbers, the full instructions
for which will be explained once we enter the chamber.

While you are in the chamber, you will be under constant observation. Also,
there will be a microphone through which anything you might say will be recorded.
It is important that you report your experiences freely and completely. You
are not expected to talk a great deal, but you should report any visual imagery,
fantasies, special or unusual feelings, difficulties in concentration, hallucinations,
feelings of disorientation, or the like. Such experiences are not unusual under
the conditions to which you are to be subjected.

If at any time you feel very discomforted, you may obtain release immediately
by pressing the button which I will show you once we enter the chamber ["by
knocking on the window," for control subjects]. Do not hesitate to use
this button if the situation becomes difficult [this sentence deleted for control
subjects]. However, try to stick it out if you can.

Should you feel upset, or should anything untoward develop, a physician is
immediately at hand [this sentence deleted for control subjects].

Remember, I should like you to pay special attention to any special visual
or other sensations, or feelings of disorientation, and to report these experiences
as they happen.

Do you have any questions?

At the conclusion of the instructions,questions were answered if at all possible
by referring to portions of the written instructions. The subject was then asked
to sign a release form that was almost identical in detail with the one used
by Freedman et al. (1961). It was worded so as to relieve the Massachusetts
Mental Health Center and all affiliated organizations and personnel from legal
responsibility for consequences of the experiment. All experimental subjects
signed the form, although some were a little reluctant to do so.

Next, the subjects' blood pressure and pulse count were recorded. These measures
were also taken for control subjects, who were told, however, that it was being
done only because it was part of the procedure for experimental subjects. After
this, subjects were given the pretest battery to be described below. At the
conclusion of the battery they were allowed to go to the bathroom, after which
they were accompanied by the experimenter to the "isolation chamber."
The isolation chamber was a quiet room 6 X 7 X 8 feet in dimension. It was furnished
simply with a large oak desk and two comfortable chairs. Beige drapes covered
a small, shaded window above the desk, but the room was amply lighted by a circular
fluorescent fixture. One wall was fitted with a 2 X 4 foot observation window,
the function of which was explained to the subject upon entering. On the desk
were a number of objects: a thermos of ice water, a glass, and a sandwich; a
microphone; a stack of approximately 2,000 sheets of paper con-

4 Four subjects were thus eliminated. One further subject was dropped because
he was not only unable to perform two of the pretests--one involving a reversible
figure and the other a mirror tracing task--but had great difficulty even in understanding
the instructions.

6 MARTIN T.ORNE AND KARL E.SCHEIBE

taining numbers; a red pushbutton mounted on a board and labeled "Emergency
Alarm."

In the instruction period the subject was informed that the food and water
were for his convenience, and that he could partake of them at any time. He
was told further that the microphone was sensitive enough to pick up anything
said in the room, and that he should comment upon the experience whenever he
felt so inclined.

Each sheet of paper containing numbers was made up of eight columns of single
random digits. The subject was told that, as an optional task, he could add
the adjacent digits in the columns, and record the sum in the space between
them. It was made clear to him that he might do as much or as little of this
task as he pleased, and that he did not have to do it at all if he did not want
to. He was instructed, however, to confine his use of paper and pencil to the
prescribed optional activity. In addition, he was requested to remain awake
throughout the period, but was assured that if he really became sleepy, it was
permissible to go to sleep.

The subject was finally informed that by pressing the pushbutton, which was
shown to activate a loud alarm, he would obtain release from the experiment.

Upon completing the instructions, the experimenter asked the subject if everything
was clear to him; if it was, the experimenter left, audibly locking the door
behind him.

The room, it should be pointed out, could hardly be construed as a sensory
deprivation environment. Voices and footsteps could be heard from other parts
of the building, and at various times the sounds of automobiles, airplanes,
and the chirping of birds outside were clearly audible. The room was well lighted
and large enough for the subject to move about freely; movements were not prohibited
by the instructions.

After the subject had been in the room for exactly 4 hours, the experimenter
returned to carry out an interview of the type to be described below, and to
run the subject again through the testing procedure: his blood pressure and
pulse were rechecked; he was asked for further comments or questions at the
conclusion, paid for his services, and released after he had promised not to
relate details of the experiment to others. The entire procedure from the time
the subject arrived to the time he left generally took 6 hours.

Procedure for Control Group

Control subjects were treated in exactly the same manner as experimental subjects
except for the following particulars. First, when greeting the subject the experimenter
wore business clothes and acted in a less officious manner. The testing room,
or office, was not equipped with an emergency tray, nor was the medical history
interview conducted. In lieu of this, the subject was told that he was part
of a control group for a sensory deprivation experiment. The usual conditions
of such an experi ment--translucent goggles, white noise, arm gauntlets, soft
bed, and restriction of activity--were described to the subject. He was informed
that he would be given exactly the same tests and receive the same instructions,
with minor modifications, that experimental sensory deprivation subjects received.
He was told that it was necessary to place him in the same chamber for the same
period of time, so that the effects of the more restrictive sensory deprivation
conditions could be differentiated from the effects of simply being left alone
in a room for a period of time. He was urged to report his experiences freely
and completely, and was told that recordings were being made of all his comments.
After these introductory remarks, the same set of instructions was read to the
control subject as was read to the experimental meaning deprivation subject
(with the modifications noted in the section on procedure for the experimental
group).

The cubicle was outfitted in exactly the same way, except that there was no
"Emergency Alarm." Control subjects were told that if they wanted
to gain release they could do so by knocking on the window.

The postexperimental treatment was the same for both groups, except that the
experimenter wore a white coat for the experimental subjects.

Tests and Criteria

Several criteria were used in the selection of tests. First, the choice was
made from among the approximately 75 tests that have been used by previous investigators
of sensory deprivation. Second, only those tests were considered which were
reported as positive indicators of sensory deprivation; that is, the results
of which were significantly different for control and experimental groups. From
the 25 tests that met these criteria, 10 were selected on the basis of ease
and speed of administration, ease and objectivity of scoring, and availability
of testing materials. Tests of both cognitive and perceptual abilities were
included. Whenever possible, exactly the same tests were used as were used by
previous investigators. In some cases approximations were necessary because
of a lack of adequate descriptions in the reports or the uniqueness of a test.
The battery which emerged was as follows. Tests are listed in order of administration.
Unless otherwise noted, tests were given in exactly the same way before and
after isolation.

Mirror Tracing. Subjects were instructed to trace a line around the .25-inch
border of a six pointed star on a conventional mirror drawing apparatus. The
score was the number of times the traced line went out of the border. Vernon
et al. (1961) found a significant decrement in the performance of this task
after deprivation.

Spatial Orientation. Subjects were asked to draw a figure in response to specific
commands, without seeing the paper on which they drew. For this purpose, a mirror
drawing shield without the mirror was used. Instructions were as follows:

7 METHODOLOGY IN DEPRIVATION STUDIES

Draw a line three inches to your left and stop. Now 90 degrees to the right
of the direction you were moving, draw a line two inches and stop. Now 90 degrees
to the right again, draw a line three inches and stop. Now 90 degrees to the
left, draw a line three inches and stop. Now 90 degrees to the right, draw a
line two inches and stop. Now 90 degrees to the right again, draw a line one
inch and stop. Finally, draw a line back to your original starting position.

Figures were scored for both linear and angular deviation from the figure thus
described. Doane et al. (1959) found experimental subjects exhibited significantly
more angular deviation on this task, while linear deviation was apparently not
scored. Linear deviation scores were included in the present experiment
with the expectation that experimental subjects would also do worse on this
aspect of spatial orientation.

Word Recognition. Subjects were given 90 seconds to study a list of 20 words
that had been taken from words classified as AA (highest) frequency in the Thorndike-Lorge
(1944) tabulation. Immediately at the conclusion of this period, subjects were
instructed to circle, on a list of 70 words of similar frequency, as many of
the original 20 as they recognized. After isolation, the recognition test was
administered without additional opportunity for study. The score was the number
of correct recognitions. This procedure was adapted from that of Zubek et al.
(1960), who found significantly poorer recognition scores for experimental subjects.

Reversible Figure. Subjects were instructed to press a counter key every time
there was a shift in a reversible figure. A 4 X 6 inch reproduction of the reversible
staircase figure was used for this test. The score was the number of alterations
in 1 minute. Significantly faster alternation cycles were found for experimental
subjects by Freedman et al. (1961) and by Freedman and Greenblatt (1961).

The Digit-Symbol subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Standard
administration and scoring procedures were used. Scott et al. (1959) and Davis,
McCourt, and Solomon (1960) found a significant superiority in accuracy of control
subjects in this task.

Simple Form perception. Six simple geometrical forms, completely regular, were
cut from black construction paper and pasted on 10 X 10 inch neutral gray cards.
These forms were: a plus sign, two parallel lines, a circle, a single straight
line, an equilateral triangle, and a square. The cards were held one at a time
in front of the viewer, at a distance of 12 feet. In the pretesting, subjects
were asked to describe what they saw on the cards, and to note any irregularities.
In the posttesting, the following instructions, identical to those used by Freedman
and Greenblatt (1961), were given:

I am going to show you some simple charts [cards], and I would like to have
you tell me what each one looks like to you--not what you think it really is,
but what it looks like subjectively.

Scores were obtained by subtracting the number of distortions reported in pretesting
from the number reported in posttesting. No more than a single distortion was
counted for each card. This test was given immediately after the subjects emerged
from isolation, in congruence with the Freedman and Greenblatt procedure. These
investigators found significantly more simple form distortions in experimental
than in control subjects

Size Constancy. Fifteen light gray circular disks of graduated diameter were
pasted on a large sheet of dark gray cardboard and shown, from a distance of
12 feet, to the subjects who were asked to estimate which disk most approximated
in size the standard disk, mounted on a similar background, and held 2 feet
from the eyes. Scores were assigned in terms of the number and direction of
step deviations from the standard. Doane et al. (1959) report that the subjects
tend to see figures larger after deprivation. This test was pulled out of order
and given right after the simple form perception test when the subject came
out of the isolation chamber. This is in accord with the procedures of Doane
et al. and also of Freedman and Greenblatt (1961).

Spiral Aftereffect. An 8-inch Archimedes spiral rotating at about 40 rpm was
viewed at a distance of 3 feet for 90 seconds. At a signal from the experimenter,
the subject shifted his vision to an identical spiral which was stationary.
Subjects were instructed to say "stop" upon cessation of the movement
aftereffect thus induced. The score was the number of seconds that the effect
persisted. Doane et al. (1959) report a greater duration of this effect after
isolation.

Logical Deductions. Subtest 3 of the Watson-Glazer Appraisal of Critical
Thinking was administered after isolation only. Standard administration and
scoring procedures were used. Goldberger and Holt (1958) found that the performance
of sensory deprivation subjects on this test was significantly poorer than was
that of controls.

The postisolation interview was conducted in exactly the same manner for all
subjects. The experimenter first called upon the subject to express, at whatever
length was agreeable to him, the general nature of his experience, his feelings,
thoughts, and so forth. After these comments, the experimenter asked him to
estimate the time he had spent in isolation and to make an affective evaluation
of the experience; the experimenter questioned the subject on the presence of
anxiety, of temporal or spatial disorientation, of distortions perception, or
of perceptions of doubtful origin; finally the experimenter asked the subject
to elaborate upon some of the

8 MARTIN T.ORNE AND KARL E.SCHEIBE

subject's opening remarks. The information gained in this interview, together
with the notes made on visual observations of the subject and recording of his
spontaneous remarks, was used in forming general clinical evaluations of his
behavior in the experimental situation.

RESULTS

In Table 1 is presented summary information on the battery of 10 tests. The
table includes determinations of statistical significance. Note the multiple
methods of scoring for a few of the measures.

Although the pre-experimental performances of the experimental and control
groups did not test significantly different, the analysis of covariance
technique was used to take into account any systematic influence of initial
values on the postexperimental comparisons. For comparisons without pre-experimental
components, simple t tests were

9 METHODOLOGY IN DEPRIVATION STUDIES

used. In one instance the plotting of the data appeared so grossly abnormal
that the distribution-free Mann-Whitney U test was used on difference scores.
One-tailed statistical probabilities are reported (except for the one statistically
insignificant instance of a mean difference in the direction opposite prediction,
that is, Word Recognition). Since this report is concerned with a critical appraisal
of factors involved in prior findings rather than an initial setting-forth of
evidence, the 10% confidence level was selected as an appropriate alpha.

It can be observed that 6 of the 14 criteria achieve statistical significance.
Note again that the mean differences of 13 of the 14 criteria are in the direction
predicted.

A Mann-Whitney U test was performed on the summation ranks of all the 14 measures
as a convenient method for summarizing the overall differences. The one-tailed
probability which emerges is p = .001, a clear demonstration of expected effects.

Subjects' Reports and the Experimenter's Clinical Impressions

That expected differences exist between the groups is further demonstrated
in Table 2, which shows for each subject the number and kind of sensory deprivation
"symptom" observed or reported. Following is a brief elaboration of
the criteria in the column headings. An analysis of the data reported in Table
2 indicates that experimental subjects exhibited a significantly greater number
of sensory deprivation "symptoms" than did control subjects (p = .01,
one-tailed, Mann-Whitney U test).

Perceptual aberrations. Various reports of unusual perceptions or imaginal
activity were obtained, both in subjects' spontaneous remarks and in the interview.
Some examples are: "the walls of the room are starting to waver";
"the objects on the desk are becoming animated and moving about";
"the lighting in the room is growing gradually

10 MARTIN T.ORNE AND KARL E.SHEIBE

dimmer and yellower"; "the buzzing of the fluorescent light is growing
alternately louder and softer, so that at times it sounds like a jackhammer";
"there are multicolored spots on the wall"; and "the numbers
on the number sheets are blurring and assuming various inkblot forms."
None of these experiences was especially upsetting to the subjects, nor did
they appear in most cases to be more than mildly compelling. An exception is
the one experimental subject who terminated by pressing the panic button, and
who gave "disorganization of senses" as one of his reasons for ending
the experiment.

Intellectual dullness. Generally, this refers to a report by the subject that
he experienced marked difficulty in concentration. Typically, those who
complained of this said that there was little difficulty at first, but that
after about half the period they became unable, even with considerable effort,
to think for more than a few seconds on any serious topic. Also included in
this category are reports of "blank periods" when the subject could
not remember thinking of anything, and which he characterized as being extremely
vague and abstract.

Affectively unpleasant. In the interview, subjects were asked to make an overall
evaluation of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the experience. Reports
ranged from extremely unpleasant to extremely pleasant. Positive entries in
this column indicate a report of mildly unpleasant or worse.

Anxiety or fears. Positive entries in this column denote a report of thoughts
of being forgotten, or of being inadvertently left in the room for a long time,
or of being trapped while the building burned down. Several subjects reported
claustrophobic anxiety.

Spatial disorientation. Included here are reports of the relative dimensions
of the room seeming to change, or of the size of the subject in relation to
the room seeming to change, or more general comments of confusion or amnesia
regarding the location of the room in the building or of the building in the
city.

Restlessness. Ratings of restlessness were based on reports by some subjects
that they began wondering whether the experiment was worth the money, entertaining
semihostile thoughts regarding the experimenter, or having serious impulses
to end the experiment. Usually, the reports indicated that such irritability
was rather short-lived and not serious, and none of the subjects was overtly
hostile to the experimenter upon completion of the experiment.

It will be noted in Table 2 that there are two apparent reversals in each group.
An example of these is the final subject in the control group who was in fact
quite upset by the experience, and terminated it by knocking on the window 3
minutes before the end of the 4-hour period. Excepting these two reversals,
however, the resulting clinical impressions for the two groups were distinct
and consistent.

The control group subject typically started his isolation period by inspecting
the room, looking through the drawers in the desk, then settling in one of the
chairs, and beginning to add the numbers. After this, the pattern of activity
would generally consist of long periods of repose interspersed with moderate
amounts of activity on the serial additions. These subjects gave the impression,
while in the chamber, of being in every way relaxed and in a pleasant frame
of mind. The rate of verbalization was lower for control than for experimental
subjects; typically there was but a single rather long comment at the beginning
telling the experimenter how the subject intended to occupy his time while in
the chamber.

In marked contrast to the repose of the controls was the general behavior of
the experimental subjects. They usually began the experiment in much the same
way as controls: inspection followed by some adding of numbers. But, after
the first hour there would ensue a marked restlessness, a decrease in the performance
of serial additions, frequent comments of displeasure at some aspect of the
experience, or remarks indicating concern over lack of time sense. Occasionally
experimental subjects would try to sleep, but with little success. Some exercised,
while others undertook an intense and minute inspection of the room. Viewed
in relation to the controls, these subjects gave an impression of

11 METHODOLOGY IN DEPRIVATION STUDIES

almost being tortured. While the control group seemed to alternate between
quiet contemplation and work with numbers, experimental subjects seemed to fluctuate
between periods of unpleasant restlessness and abstract, vague periods of total
inactivity.

DISCUSSION

These findings demonstrate that subjects' behavior can be differentially manipulated
by altering the implicit and explicit cues in the experimental situation, and
further that subjects may react to social cues, or demand characteristics, in
such a way as to confound experimental results.

In the light of our findings, it would seem plausible to suggest that an important
confounding variable may be present in much of the reported sensory deprivation
research. (Our data yield no evidence, of course, regarding the effect of actual
restriction of sensory input. It is possible that many aspects of the reported
phenomena in sensory deprivation studies are due to the restriction of sensory
input.) Our data emphasize the need for further research to determine the actual
extent to which the reported "sensory deprivation phenomena" are related
to the decrement of sensory input.

In any experiment, the subject's reaction may be viewed as resulting from both
the actual treatment (restriction of sensory input by means of gauntlets, goggles,
special chambers, etc.) and the social situation created by the setting in which
the experiment is conducted, the instructions used, and the cue characteristics
of the treatment operations themselves. For example, in our particular experiment
the treatment was not that of sensory deprivation, but, rather, of 4-hour isolation.
At the same time, the situation (demand characteristics) was deliberately varied
for the control and the experimental groups. We interpret our data to mean that
four hours of isolation coupled with differing sets of demand characteristics
yield different experimental results.

The demonstrated effectiveness of demand characteristics in this or any experiment
is not taken to indicate that subjects openly and willfully cooperate with the
experimenter.

Rather, it is likely that social cues can determine the subject's actual experience
in the situation. There is reason to believe that the subjects in the Meaning
Deprivation experimental condition actually did experience considerable discomfort.
The demand characteristics communicated to the subjects that they would feel
discomfort despite any efforts to forestall discomfort. It must be remembered
that in order for this communication to be effective, the treatment conditions
must be such that they might reasonably be expected to produce just those effects
suggested by the pre-experimental cues. This is to say that treatment conditions
in themselves communicate crucial social cues and that these are assimilated
with the other social cues in the experimental setting to form the demand characteristics
of the particular experiment. If both these components of demand characteristics
consistently provide an expectation of discomfort and a decrement in performance,
then it is likely that the subject's experience as well as his behavior will
be constrained by these demands. A distinction is to be made between behavior
constrained in this fashion and conscious cooperation (Sarbin, 1950).

The main difficulty in designing definitive sensory deprivation experiments
is the inevitable close relationship between the alterations in the physical
environment that are necessary to decrease sensory input and the demand characteristics
communicated by their use. In order to create the treatment of sensory deprivation,
goggles, gauntlets, and various other devices have to be employed. Their use
provides obvious cues as to how the subject is expected to behave in the situation.

These considerations suggest that a feasible approach would be to utilize conditions
of maximal deprivation while varying the demand characteristics. It is possible
to structure the situation so that different groups perceive the restriction
as a means to a variety of experimental purposes. It is not possible to eliminate
demand characteristics, but they can be varied with relative ease. Cues provided
by the deprivation manipulations themselves must remain fairly constant,

12 MARTIN T.ORNE AND KARL E.SCHEIBE

but the other cues can be systematically varied, thereby creating a variety
of totally distinct sets of demand characteristics for different groups. Such
studies would go far toward clarifying the actual effects of reduced sensory
input.